Span, Inc. v. Associated International Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that policies listed in Schedule of Underlying Insurance did not have to be “collectible” to set the lower limit of excess insurer’s liability, since “collectible” referred only to insurance not listed
• holding that collusion has been variously defined as, among other things, “a deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons for the one party to bring an action against [another] for some evil purpose, [so] as to defraud [a] third party of his right[s]”
• interpreting an identical Loss Payable provision to the Home policy and finding that \the Associated policy unambiguously contemplates \exhaustion\ of the underlying insurance only by payment of the underlying limits either by the insured or its primary carrier.\
• language of excess policy was not ambiguous where it required exhaustion of underlying limit by payment before excess insured was required to respond and, therefore, exhaustion by insolvency of primary insurer was not sufficient
• “In the event of reduction or exhaustion of the aggregate limits of liability applicable to the underlying . . . by reason of losses paid thereunder, this policy shall, . . . (1) in the event of reduction pay the excess of the reduced underlying limit; (B

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).